Quote
Termikas (where I have my plane for refurb) doesn’t want to sign the CRS without proof it’s ok to operate my prop on condition. They’re saying the AMP needs to reference the “propeller life time exception document”. Can anyone help me understand what this is and how I sort this out?
Termikas saw the prop listed (for historical reasons) by Socata in the airworthiness limitations and stopped there… however, the AWL section lists either the Hartzell SL (1) or the FAA AC (2).
1: Hartzell SL says 2400h/x years, BUT also references that „airworthiness limitations are in the POH of the prop“. If you dig out those in the POH, you’ll find there aren’t any.
It’s a SL, so it’s nice to know, but not mandatory. So we have a mandatory to comply with section (airworthiness limitations) reference a SL that is not mandatory and references to check prop POH for prop airworthiness limitations.
Airframe airworthiness limitations → prop service letter → prop POH → airworthiness limitations. Result: 0 / none
2: To fulfill Socatas historical desire for prop airworthiness limitations they passed liability on to Hartzell (see 1) but also listed …or FAA AC xyz… the latter doesn’t even pertain to that unique prop and is a general maintenance practices document – and if obeyed, the limitations are complied.
So we have
Airframe airworthiness limitations → FAA AC → maintain / inspect according. Result: 0 / none
All clear?
@Snoopy you may be right, but the typical EASA shop, at least in my experience, tends to treat SBs as mandatory. Seen perfectly good hoses, propellers and gear motors sent for overhaul/replacement due to calendar time recommendations.
A Beechcraft given the clear time-in-service manufacturer recommendations could be a nightmare in the wrong shop.
Because ML is in effect since 2020 only… which in aviation translates to yesterday.
Unfortunately it is up to owners to inform these shops that they need to read up on regulations.
More important than “how recent” is that ML is a revenue reducing route, and thus deeply unpopular with the industry. They aren’t stupid. This is literally bread on the table at home.
Snoopy wrote:
Because ML is in effect since 2020 only… which in aviation translates to yesterday.
That’s not new with part-ML. Skipping “mandatory” SBs in practice requires an owner-declared maintenance programme. You could have that under part-M as well. (We did under part-M and used that to run an 2000 hr TBO engine to 3400 hrs before overhaul.)
What I’m finding is there are usually reasonable EASA solutions to maintenance issues, and the paperwork requirement is also reasonable. The problem is the learning curve. I could have just grounded my plane and spent thousands on an unnecessary overhaul had I not done the digging to figure it out. I can see why CAMO is attractive, although I’m personally interested in understanding all this rather than putting my head in the sand and outsourcing it. I feel like I’m already at a point where I understand so much more than I did a year ago, and the effort is paying off in both cost and understanding of my airplane and its maintenance status.
dutch_flyer wrote:
The problem is the learning curve
Indeed.
dutch_flyer wrote:
I can see why CAMO is attractive
Don’t expect a CAMO to assist you with these things, i.e. advise you about what maintenance action is strictly required by law (despite what a “shop” told you) and what makes sense to do from a “practical” point of view. That is not the purpose of having an aircraft in a CAMO-controlled environment.
What one needs to get help in these matters is something similar to Savvy. I know someone (very knowledgable) who is about to set something like that up in Europe, but this service is not yet available.
Airborne_Again wrote:
You could have that under part-M as well. (We did under part-M and used that to run an 2000 hr TBO engine to 3400 hrs before overhaul.)
Under Part-M iirc the AMP was declared by the owner however still also subject to approval by the NAA?!
Depending on the peculiarities of each NAA the specific extensions were approved or not.
boscomantico wrote:
What one needs to get help in these matters is something similar to Savvy. I know someone (very knowledgable) who is about to set something like that up in Europe, but this service is not yet available.
It’s about time. Could you put me in touch with the person?
SAVVY in EASA-land thread and why most European shops don’t like it 
They will never like it, for the reasons posted. All this stuff is industry revenue reducing, and once you have an airfield-political and EASA-political setup which bends most European owners over a barrel, any attempt to remove that barrel will be resisted.
